Fax hardware/boards that other members have used within service provider
environments to deliver services to their end users .
-Original Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:36 AM
To: Ryan Finnesey
Cc: nanog@nanog.or
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:30:23 -, Ryan Finnesey said:
> I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations on carrier grade fax boards
> that are SIP based?
What would "carrier grade" even *mean* for a fax board?
pgpnbu6lUPiJ5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> Am 27.04.2016 um 18:09 schrieb Hank Nussbacher :
>
> On 27/04/2016 18:58, John Kristoff wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:46:13 +0200
>> Martin Bacher wrote:
>>
>>> - Intra-AS BGP FlowSpec deployment: Who is running it? For which kind
>>> of attacks are you using it? Are you only dropping or r
> Am 27.04.2016 um 17:58 schrieb John Kristoff :
>
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:46:13 +0200
> Martin Bacher wrote:
>
>> - Intra-AS BGP FlowSpec deployment: Who is running it? For which kind
>> of attacks are you using it? Are you only dropping or rate-limiting
>> certain traffic or are you also usi
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Peter Kranz wrote:
> Curious if you have any thoughts on the longevity of the 7500R and
> 7280R survival's with IPv4 full tables? How full are you seeing the TCAM
> getting today (I'm assuming they are doing some form of selective
> download)? And if we ar
I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations on carrier grade fax boards
that are SIP based?
Cheers
Ryan
Ryan,
Curious if you have any thoughts on the longevity of the 7500R and
7280R survival's with IPv4 full tables? How full are you seeing the TCAM
getting today (I'm assuming they are doing some form of selective download)?
And if we are currently adding 100k/routes a year, how much longe
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
So, if this is basically DNS64/NAT64, these IP addresses should not be
seen as source or destination address outside of T-Mobile's network, and
are not attached to the interface of any device.
Based on http://dan.drown.org/android/clat/, it looks li
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 02:38:41PM -0700, Ca By wrote:
> What behavior do you expect when an ipv6only node connects to an ipv4only
> node , which is the tmobile case? How is that address of the address
> report?
As far as I know, IPv4-only DHT nodes do not directly communicate with
IPv6-only DHT n
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:16:28PM -0700, Aaron Hopkins wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
>
> >While doing statistics on the participants of a public DHT, I was
> >surprised to see some IP addresses that are not present in the DFZ:
>
> I believe those are used by T-mobile's 46
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Aaron Hopkins wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
>
> While doing statistics on the participants of a public DHT, I was
>> surprised to see some IP addresses that are not present in the DFZ:
>>
>
> I believe those are used by T-mobile's 464XLAT (RFC
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
While doing statistics on the participants of a public DHT, I was
surprised to see some IP addresses that are not present in the DFZ:
I believe those are used by T-mobile's 464XLAT (RFC 6877) implementation.
Recent Android on T-mobile is IPv6-only
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Baptiste Jonglez
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While doing statistics on the participants of a public DHT, I was
> surprised to see some IP addresses that are not present in the DFZ:
>
> 2607:7700:0:25::4e00:605b
> 2607:7700:0:25::4e25:8ce8
> 2607:7700:0:25::c808:db2c
> 2607:7700
Hi,
While doing statistics on the participants of a public DHT, I was
surprised to see some IP addresses that are not present in the DFZ:
2607:7700:0:25::4e00:605b
2607:7700:0:25::4e25:8ce8
2607:7700:0:25::c808:db2c
2607:7700:0:4::3294:6683
2607:7700:0:4::4c09:4d39
2607:7700:0:4::5985:87d1
2607:7
One toll defeat trick that worked in GTE land in Southern California was to
call the operator, then silently wait for them to hang up. Rattle the receiver
hook several times for them to come back on the line and they would not know
the caller's telephone number.
-Original Message-
Fro
On 27/04/2016 18:58, John Kristoff wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:46:13 +0200
> Martin Bacher wrote:
>
>> - Intra-AS BGP FlowSpec deployment: Who is running it? For which kind
>> of attacks are you using it? Are you only dropping or rate-limiting
>> certain traffic or are you also using the redir
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:46:13 +0200
Martin Bacher wrote:
> - Intra-AS BGP FlowSpec deployment: Who is running it? For which kind
> of attacks are you using it? Are you only dropping or rate-limiting
> certain traffic or are you also using the redirect/remark
> capabilities? What are the limitation
>> On our VOIP service we include US, Canada and Puerto Rico as "local"
>> calling.
>I would imagine for VOIP that's because all three are country code 1 :)
If you know a VoIP carrier that offers flat rates to 1-473, 1-664, and
1-767, I know some people who'd like to talk to you. At great length
> That's the normal Monday morning maint window
> for UO, when they all too frequently make us
> disappear... :(
as there, barbers here are also closed on mondays.
thanks for clue
19 matches
Mail list logo
